Combatting Public Resistance to Wind Turbines in Northern Michigan
Executive Summary
Michigan faces strong opposition from residents as the state works to increase wind energy generation. This policy memo investigates potential wind energy policies that the state can implement while taking public demands into consideration. There are two major behavioral issues that are shaping public outcry against wind energy in Michigan.
1. Wind turbines are perceived as a risk that will clash with the current lifestyle of local communities.
2. Residents near proposed wind turbine sites employ motivated reasoning to create largely negative, and sometimes incorrect, perceptions about wind energy.
Overall, Michiganders in proposed wind farm sites are skeptical that wind turbines will adversely affect their way of life and choose to reject potential wind energy developments. There are three ways the state of Michigan can take into account the behavior of the public and institute policy that both amplifies wind energy generation and alleviates the concerns of locals.
1. Increase community engagement and dialogue about wind farms to educate residents on the impact of wind turbines
2. Select locations for future wind developments that consider public demands
3. Implement wind energy projects that financially compensate local residents
The goals of these recommendations are to change local perceptions of wind energy from negative to positive through education, choose future wind farm developments in conjunction with communities to prevent pushback, and making sure the communities receive proper monetary benefits from the wind farms.
Background Information
Over the years, Michigan has made great strides in implementing wind turbines as a way to increase renewable energy within the state, as Michigan is currently 13th in the United States for wind capacity. However, Michigan still lags behind many other comparable Midwest states, such as Illinois and Iowa, in terms of wind energy generation. The main reason why Michigan has not reached its full potential in wind power is due to community backlash. In recent May 2019 local elections, three different communities across Northern Michigan emphatically voted down pro-wind proposals. All three of the communities are located in a region of Northern Michigan known colloquially as “The Thumb” and this region has great potential for ample wind power. Large portions of Thumb of Northern contain the highest average wind speed across the state of Michigan at 10m/s. The Thumb of Michigan is also the location of most current and future wind developments in Michigan. Overall, this region is home to the majority of Michigan’s current wind power, as well as the majority of Michigan’s future wind potential. If residents and communities in The Thumb continue to push back against wind developments, Michigan will struggle to decarbonize its energy sector, as wind is currently the most abundant renewable energy source, powering almost 5% of the state.
The divide in the wind energy debate has two clear stakeholders, the state government of Michigan and the Northern Michigan residents in proposed wind farm sites. The government is adamantly pushing increased wind developments across Northern Michigan, but local residents have a variety of hesitations about wind farms in their communities. Many Michiganders have negative perceptions about wind turbines or are concerned about issues such as noise, landscape development, finances and aesthetics. For the state of Michigan to move forward with their goal of expanding its renewable energy portfolio through wind turbine developments, the state must alleviate the concerns and change the negative perceptions that local residents have about wind energy.
Critique of Current Practices
Currently, the primary energy producer of Michigan, DTE, has a standard development process for determining and building wind farms. DTE conducts a 12-step wind development process for all wind turbine programs, the first five steps focused on site determination and the final seven steps concentrating on the physical construction of the wind farms. The first five steps include obtaining land easements, collecting data, applying for electrical interconnection, identifying turbine locations and securing permits. While this process seems thorough, it marginalizes community engagement. Community meetings are only briefly mentioned, and the information conveyed at the meeting is not specified at all.
The lack of substantial public outreach in the development process can be directly linked to community resistance to wind farms. There is a plethora of evidence that illustrates the benefits of wind energy, and if community residents are voting against wind turbines, either this information is not clearly conveyed, or residents are using motivated reasoning to reaffirm their current perceptions of wind power. Wind farm information needs to be framed differently so that these proposals do not threaten the way of life of the rural communities where development may occur. Just as important, the benefits that wind turbines provide to communities must be emphasized as a way to help alter the negative perceptions about wind energy local residents may have.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Increase community engagement and dialogue about wind farms to educate residents on the impact of wind turbines
Increasing community participation in the wind energy development process is crucial to the future success of renewable energy. Clean energy technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines are extremely complex, and the majority of the public do not know the full extent of implications these technologies may have. The lack of thorough understanding about renewable energy triggers behavioral mechanisms that can cause people to reject these new energy sources. The most important of these behaviors are risk perception and motivated reasoning. The unknowns of wind turbines can cause people to perceive wind developments as a risk to their way of life. When threatened, people can use motivated reasoning to create negative narratives, such as false information about wind turbines, to reinforce their existing beliefs6. This motivated reasoning results in people confirming that they want to remain at the status quo, in this example meaning without wind turbines. To make sure communities are fully aware of the implications of wind energy developments, Michigan utility companies must increase public outreach to educate as many people as possible about wind turbine developments in their communities.
The state of Michigan can see many benefits by expanding community involvement in the development process for wind energy. Events such as public town halls, information sessions, and surveys are all viable options to increase community activism in wind energy projects. By providing comprehensive information and answering community questions about wind farms, state utility companies can alleviate the concerns of communities where wind turbines may be developed. If people have a more holistic understanding of the effects of wind turbines, along with the benefits they may receive from the turbines, they will view the developments as less of a risk. This shifts the behavioral perception of wind turbines from negative to positive. Community engagement can also help counter the negative effects of motivated reasoning. When utility companies host community meetings about future developments, they must frame wind turbine information in a way that aligns with the values and beliefs of the community. Local residents will then be less likely to view wind turbines as a threat and support the development.
By promoting dialogue with community members in a variety of forms during the wind development process, the Michigan government can gain the support of locals before any project hits the ballot box. With higher public approval of the potential project, the proposal has a higher chance to be supported in local elections, leading to increased wind developments in Michigan.
Recommendation 2: Select locations for future wind developments that consider public demands
A second way to decrease public resistance to wind developments in Northern Michigan is to choose future wind turbine sites in conjunction with public interests. Utility companies can reduce backlash against by taking into consideration public concerns when choosing future development sites.
New Zealand faces a similar predicament as Michigan, as the country is amplifying wind energy developments, but despite the positive progress, many citizens oppose the new wind farms. Researchers surveyed local residents around three wind farms of different sizes in New Zealand, and the results showed that the most common negative aspects about all three sites were construction and landscape. A similar survey study was also conducted in Huron County Michigan, one of the counties in The Thumb with large amounts of wind farms. Local residents around two different wind turbines reported negative comments about the noise from turbines and how turbines are eyesores7. Both of these studies have similar results and provide a guideline for how to reduce public opposition to wind farms by taking into account the public’s negative perceptions of wind turbines.
When Michigan utility companies are deliberating on the location of future wind farms, they should choose a location that best addresses public concerns. Prior studies have revealed the major problems locals have with wind turbines, and by addressing these problems in the site selection process, the public would be more supportive of the new wind farm developments. For example, residents in The Thumb have raised concerns about how turbines are loud and ruin the view of the landscape. Utility companies should work to identify locations away from population centers in The Thumb and away from important natural features, such as the shores of Lake Huron. While finding a location that satisfies all the publics demands is unlikely, utility companies should still consider public concerns to find viable wind turbine locations that minimize negative perceptions from the public. If the selected location does not threaten or negatively impact the life of local residents, residents will have more positive perceptions of wind turbines and be more likely to support future wind energy projects.
Recommendation 3: Implement wind energy projects that financially compensate local residents
Finally, a major way that the state of Michigan can increase public support for wind energy projects is to make sure portions of wind energy profits benefit the communities with installed wind farms. If locals know they will be fairly compensated for allowing wind developments in their communities, it will help reduce local hesitation for the projects.
Iowa is a midwestern state that has become one of the largest producers of wind energy in the United States as it produces a higher percentage of its energy from wind than any other state and ranks second in the nation in total wind capacity. Michigan has a similar capacity for wind energy, yet Michigan lags far behind Iowa. A scientific study analyzing wind perceptions in Iowa found that “that support for wind power hinged largely on perceived increased employment and economic activity”. This paper argued that the most effective way to generate positive perceptions from the public is by emphasizing the socioeconomic benefits of wind energy.
Utility companies in Michigan can replicate the success in Iowa by implementing wind projects where locals can see financial benefits. Many communities see the addition of wind turbines as a risk that can threaten their lives. However, if the state of Michigan can highlight the socioeconomic benefits communities can receive from wind farms, the perceived risk of these developments is lower. If locals know they will receive tangible benefits, they will be more likely to form positive perceptions around wind energy and support development projects. The state of Michigan can implement measures such as providing residents compensation for allowing the state to use their land for turbines, tax rebates for homes near turbines and lowering the utilities of communities around the wind farm. Michigan can also investigate the prospect of community ownership of wind turbines as another way to provide financial benefits to locals. Nova Scotia, which has community ownership of turbines, has over 3 times as much positive public support for developments then nearby Ontario, where wind turbines are owned corporately.
Overall, there are a variety of ways for the state of Michigan to provide financial compensation to locals when implementing wind farms. No matter what option is chosen, providing monetary benefits to local communities will help reduce public risk perceptions and increase public support for wind energy developments.
Conclusion
The state of Michigan can fully unlock its wind energy potential by working to increase local community support of wind energy projects in The Thumb. With a three-pronged approach of educating the public on the implications of wind turbines, selecting future wind development sites with regard to community concerns and financially compensating residents around wind turbines, Michigan can quell public resistance to wind turbines. With the positive support of residents in public elections, Michigan can take the next step in increasing statewide renewable energy generation and become a nationwide leader in clean energy.
Annotated Bibliography
1. “Wind Energy.” DTE Energy | Wind Energy, DTE, www.newlook.dteenergy.com/wps/wcm/connect/dteweb/home/community-and-news/common/renewable-energy/wind-energy.
2. Carter, Evan. “Communities Again Say 'No' To Industrial Wind Farm Developers.” – Michigan Capitol Confidential, www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/communities-again-say-no-to-industrial-wind-farm-developers
3. “Wind Energy in Michigan.” WINDExchange, U.S. Department of Energy, windexchange.energy.gov/states/mi.
4. “Wind Energy in Michigan.” Sierra Club- Michigan Chapter, Sierra Club, 30 Oct. 2019, www.sierraclub.org/michigan/wind.
5. “Wind Development Process.” DTE Energy | Wind Energy, DTE Energy, July 2019, www.newlook.dteenergy.com/wps/wcm/connect/85b9d069-b038-46d6-836f-
8df24b31ccb6/WindDevelopmentProcess.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=85b9d069-b038-46d6-836f-8df24b31ccb6.
6. Graham, Jessica B., et al. “Public Perceptions of Wind Energy Developments: Case Studies from New Zealand.” Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 9, 2009, pp. 3348–3357., doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.035
7. Groth, Theresa M., and Christine Vogt. “Residents' Perceptions of Wind Turbines: An Analysis of Two Townships in Michigan.” Arizona State University, Elsevier BV, 14 Apr. 2016, asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/residentsperceptions-of-wind-turbines-an-analysis-of-two-townshi.
8. “Wind Energy in Iowa.” Wind Energy - Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Environmental Council, www.iaenvironment.org/our-work/clean-energy/wind-energy.
9. Slattery, Michael C., et al. “The Predominance of Economic Development in the Support for Large-Scale Wind Farms in the U.S. Great Plains.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 16, no. 6, 2012, pp. 3690–3701.,doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.016.
10. “Nova Scotia Policy on Wind Farms Makes Them 3 Times More Popular than in Ontario, Study Says | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 5 Mar. 2017, www.cbc.ca/news/nova-scotia-ontario-wind-farms-1.4010653.